How Different Moral Perspectives Have Influenced the Practice of Youth and Community Work
Introduction
The essence of morality is ‘concerned with the principles or rules of rights and wrong or conforming to standards based on those principles’ (Dictionary.com). However differing models for living morally, resulting from the diversity of experience, will conflict in how they determine what these principles are. Thus, these ethical frameworks will hold different conceptions of ethical practice and what services such as Youth and Community work should deliver.
This essay will attempt to show the importance of understanding how different moral perspectives have influenced the practice of Youth and Community work, before describing three contending ethical frameworks of deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics; assessing under what conditions, circumstances or criteria would each of these view these practices as a moral activity.
Morality
A moral principle is essentially one that distinguishes between right and wrong behaviour. When someone holds a coherent and compatible set of moral principles it can be considered an ethical framework, which provides the foundation for how people understand or explain social reality. Thus, it is the basis from which they choose to conduct their lives and interact with others. Such a ‘code’ will be constructed from, and determined by all manner of life experiences, social environments and circumstances, and therefore will vary greatly. Some of the most common factors that contribute towards an ethical framework are personal or religious beliefs and cultural standards.
The nature of Youth and Community work entails working closely with in both individual and group settings, where diversity of these moral values is inevitable. Different moral perspectives will necessarily emphasise different roles and purposes for these projects and organisations. As informal educators, there are no ‘ready-made guidelines’ on what constitutes good and bad practice; instead practitioners will have a set of ‘core values’ that they
The essence of morality is ‘concerned with the principles or rules of rights and wrong or conforming to standards based on those principles’ (Dictionary.com). However differing models for living morally, resulting from the diversity of experience, will conflict in how they determine what these principles are. Thus, these ethical frameworks will hold different conceptions of ethical practice and what services such as Youth and Community work should deliver.
This essay will attempt to show the importance of understanding how different moral perspectives have influenced the practice of Youth and Community work, before describing three contending ethical frameworks of deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics; assessing under what conditions, circumstances or criteria would each of these view these practices as a moral activity.
Morality
A moral principle is essentially one that distinguishes between right and wrong behaviour. When someone holds a coherent and compatible set of moral principles it can be considered an ethical framework, which provides the foundation for how people understand or explain social reality. Thus, it is the basis from which they choose to conduct their lives and interact with others. Such a ‘code’ will be constructed from, and determined by all manner of life experiences, social environments and circumstances, and therefore will vary greatly. Some of the most common factors that contribute towards an ethical framework are personal or religious beliefs and cultural standards.
The nature of Youth and Community work entails working closely with in both individual and group settings, where diversity of these moral values is inevitable. Different moral perspectives will necessarily emphasise different roles and purposes for these projects and organisations. As informal educators, there are no ‘ready-made guidelines’ on what constitutes good and bad practice; instead practitioners will have a set of ‘core values’ that they
References: Banks, S. (1995), Ethics and Values in Social work (3rd ed.): Hampshire: Pelgrave Macmillan Blackburn, S. (2001), Being Good: A short introduction to ethics: New York: Oxford Hobbes, T. ([1651] 1996), Leviathan, Tuck, R. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. (1997) ‘Living with Values’ [Online] Available from: http://www.infed.org/foundations/w-inf7.htm [Accessed 02/11/2008] Kant, I. ([1785b] 2003) ‘Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals: Second Section, Transition from Popular Moral Philosophy to the Metaphysic of Morals’, Abbott,T.K. (trs.), [Online] Available from: http://www.msu.org/ethics/content-eythics/texts/kant/kanttxt2.html [Accessed 05/02/2008] Machiavelli, N. ([1518] 1969) The Discourses: Crick, B. (ed.): London: Pelican. Parker, J. (2000), Structuration: Buckingham: Open University. Smart, J.J.C. and Williams, B. (1973), Utilitarianism for and against: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tam, H. (1998), Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship: Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Taylor, P.W. (1975), Principles of Ethics, Belmont; California: Wadsworth.